Probably, but I see so many things going wrong now, and that could possibly go wrong in the near future because we didn't take precautions measures earlier on. Quite honestly, as has been stated, it will be long before it actually becomes a problem in the US and will likely impact developing nations overseas long before it ever (if it ever) takes effect here. It's certainly something to think about though -- the world won't end if you have 3 or 4 kids, and I'm all for limiting government control. I just think the world world would be a much better place in so many aspects if we didn't have so many billions of people here competing for resources.HITNRUNXX wrote:
And dude, for real, you are an incredibly intelligent young man. I honestly believe that. But in this, I feel like you are a smart missile locked onto the wrong target... You are one of the guys that are going to MAKE the future... Just look into fixing the right problems and not taking what initially may sound like the easiest route. I honestly believe that is in your capability.CommieChipmunk wrote:
But if it's going to be 'broke' in the future, what should we do? Nothing..?
Poll
How many kids should a couple be allowed to have?
| Not more than 3 | 28% | 28% - 46 | ||||
| Not more than 2 | 35% | 35% - 57 | ||||
| Only 1 | 8% | 8% - 14 | ||||
| Other number (specify) | 26% | 26% - 42 | ||||
| Total: 159 | ||||||
I have 3 and that enough for me...got fix 7 month ago!!!
2-3 is more than enough.
I have 2 and they cost me Lot's of money between clothes,school,and toys.
I have 2 and they cost me Lot's of money between clothes,school,and toys.
Hmm...it used to be the way I described. Seems that a lot has changed since we left.FEOS wrote:
Um, not really. It's limited to one, regardless of sex. In certain rural areas, they are allowed two if the first one is female or disabled. It's just that the Chinese culture does not place any value in female children...they are considered a burden to be tolerated until you can marry them off. So families (normally rural families) drop the girls off at orphanages and markets and such. That's if they allow them to live at all. It's not nearly as bad in the urban areas as in the rural ones, but it is still a prevalent cultural trait.some_random_panda wrote:
China's policy is as many as you want until you get a boy. Then you have to stop.
This would work in reducing population in the long run (and making prospects much better for men in the meantime), but it would take a while to have much effect.
So what you end up with is an imbalance in the male/female ratio, which is what China has now. More men than women in the current 20-something generation. Cultural biases + population controls + inconsistent enforcement = /fail.
Want to learn more about it? Read The Lost Daughters of China and The Good Earth.
Or adopt a child from China...you'll learn all about it.
Yes, that is exactly it! I don't want the government running my life. I believe in a government of, by, and for the people...Not the other way around.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
So you don't like the government deciding on how many kids you are allowed to have, which is understandable.
Why do we have to have a population of 12 Billions people or more, isnt 6 billion enough allready? Aren't our problems big enough allready?
The better questions are, "are our current problems caused by a theoretical 'overpopulation'" and "why should we pick some arbitrary population to limit people to?"
It burdens our planet tbhclogar wrote:
there are financial consequences for families that have 3 kids. also i know a family that has 12 kids and they are some amazingly happy people, they're not rich but they aren't burdening our country (america) so why does it matter how many kids one has.Turquoise wrote:
On the one hand, I would suggest that the government should help make sure that children are not subjected to abuse or neglect. On the other hand, we also shouldn't send the message that you can have as many kids as you want without financial consequences. (In other words, the child credit tax deductions should be limited to the first 2 kids.)clogar wrote:
and who is the government to deny children their lives?
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Of course there would be issues if we from one day to another reduced every countries population by 50%. But that's not what I am saying. When I said that if everybody only had one kid I just made an example of how it is possible to reduce population. I dont think we should do that.HITNRUNXX wrote:
And a conflicting view: If it is broke, then DO fix it... But don't mislabel it, misrepresent it, and mispackage it as the wrong problem... Population is not the problem. Every "problem" brought up here has a separate answer. And virtually none of those problems will be "fixed" by reducing the population... Just like I said with oil... Even if we cut the population in half right now, then as long as nothing else changes, we are still dependent on oil and it will still EVENTUALLY run out. That is not FIXING anything, merely postponing it. The Earth will never get any smaller. Do you think if a country has half as many people it automatically fixes anything?
Wasted resources? Do you think they will destroy half the roads in America, just because there are half the people? No... it would end up taking MORE resources to maintain them all and keep them all up... Will they need less phone lines? Electrical lines? Any of thousands of different resource based items? No. It is too late for that. We are already spread out.
The most you can do by merely reducing the population is postpone the problems... It would be like a great doctor being days away from a cure for cancer, only to find out he has it himself. Instead of finishing his cure, he freezes himself, to be unfrozen when someone ELSE has cured cancer, so he doesn't have to live with it... The problems aren't going away, we are just wishing them off onto other people.
I would rather have my 3 kids study hard and possibly contribute something important to the world, rather than any of them to not exist at all and simply hope for the best...
And I now that we will not directly fix our problems by just reducing population or stop growing, but in doing either of those the problems we face will be easier to solve and we also may have more time to find a solution. I am a 100% for removing our need for Oil all together, whether we are 3 billion, 6 billion or 20 billion on this planet. So I am not at all saying that we can kill of half our population and live happily ever after, I know that's not solving anything. But as I said, it will be so much more easier to (for example) find an alternative energy source for 7 billion people than for 20 billion.
I dont see why we as a species need to keep growing? There are enough of us allready. Developing countries are of course the ones who need to take serious action against their population growth, but we must also do our part. 1 % annual population growth might not sound lika a very big number, but its enough to double the population well within this century.
I agree with you 100% that we need to do our part. But limiting our population is not our part. OUR part is using the vast number of gifted minds we have, thanks to the size of our population, and solve the actual problems. They have just recently made improvements to genetically enhanced food that will allow crops to produce 5-10 times the amount of food in the same space. THAT is our part.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Of course there would be issues if we from one day to another reduced every countries population by 50%. But that's not what I am saying. When I said that if everybody only had one kid I just made an example of how it is possible to reduce population. I dont think we should do that.
And I now that we will not directly fix our problems by just reducing population or stop growing, but in doing either of those the problems we face will be easier to solve and we also may have more time to find a solution. I am a 100% for removing our need for Oil all together, whether we are 3 billion, 6 billion or 20 billion on this planet. So I am not at all saying that we can kill of half our population and live happily ever after, I know that's not solving anything. But as I said, it will be so much more easier to (for example) find an alternative energy source for 7 billion people than for 20 billion.
I dont see why we as a species need to keep growing? There are enough of us allready. Developing countries are of course the ones who need to take serious action against their population growth, but we must also do our part. 1 % annual population growth might not sound lika a very big number, but its enough to double the population well within this century.
I dont want a fascist government that kills every child of a parent that has more than the "allowed amount". What I want is a government "of, by, and for the people" that somehow makes it so that people only can have a certain number of children. It is for our own best. We dont need more people on this planet.RAIMIUS wrote:
Yes, that is exactly it! I don't want the government running my life. I believe in a government of, by, and for the people...Not the other way around.
The better questions are, "are our current problems caused by a theoretical 'overpopulation'" and "why should we pick some arbitrary population to limit people to?"
Many of our problems may not be caused directly by "overpopulation", but the problems are often correlated with the fact there are som many of us! They'r also made worse and harder to fix the more people we have on this planet.
Sorry, but I am not familiar with the word "arbitrary", could you explain what it means? (Does it have anything to do with Arbitrage in the financial world?)
Yes, I agree. But I still don't see the point of growing more than we allready have? A bigger population is not necessary at this point. That is why I think we have to do something to stop growth. At least keep it in mind.HITNRUNXX wrote:
I agree with you 100% that we need to do our part. But limiting our population is not our part. OUR part is using the vast number of gifted minds we have, thanks to the size of our population, and solve the actual problems. They have just recently made improvements to genetically enhanced food that will allow crops to produce 5-10 times the amount of food in the same space. THAT is our part.
We don't need a limit either.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
I dont want a fascist government that kills every child of a parent that has more than the "allowed amount". What I want is a government "of, by, and for the people" that somehow makes it so that people only can have a certain number of children. It is for our own best. We dont need more people on this planet.
This is exactly a fascist issue. Hey people, you are too stupid to take care of yourselves, and we can't figure out how to take care of you either, so we will limit you and hope the problem gets solved later... Oh we killed the baby that would have grown into the man to solve world hunger? Oops, surely another will be along sooner or later.
I guess you're just more optimistic than I am. Because I certainly don't believe that some Messiah will be born and end world hunger, that's something that we all have to do together. And no matter how much of a fascist you think that I am, the problem of an overpopulated earth still remains.
A family of 12 is especially burdensome? Please, enumerate.FloppY_ wrote:
It burdens our planet tbh
Arbitrary: An action or decision that has no underlying logic or reason to it.Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Sorry, but I am not familiar with the word "arbitrary", could you explain what it means? (Does it have anything to do with Arbitrage in the financial world?)
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-01-24 08:18:43)
Thank you. (You learn something every day)SenorToenails wrote:
Arbitrary: An action or decision that has no underlying logic or reason to it.
Not to revive a dying thread, but I would really like to hear what Cam and Serge have to say about this issue....? So if you guys see this than throw in a comment.
4
oh and you don't burden our planet, only kids do?FloppY_ wrote:
It burdens our planet tbhclogar wrote:
there are financial consequences for families that have 3 kids. also i know a family that has 12 kids and they are some amazingly happy people, they're not rich but they aren't burdening our country (america) so why does it matter how many kids one has.Turquoise wrote:
On the one hand, I would suggest that the government should help make sure that children are not subjected to abuse or neglect. On the other hand, we also shouldn't send the message that you can have as many kids as you want without financial consequences. (In other words, the child credit tax deductions should be limited to the first 2 kids.)
edit: take twelve of you guys on here, you probably burden our world as much as that family; though probably more.
Last edited by clogar (2008-01-24 17:59:42)
also kids aren't a burden, good grief you guys are assholes
You make a good point about burdens, clogar, but I define burden as someone that can't pay their own way on things. A lot of families have more kids than they can afford without help. That means they become a burden to taxpayers.
So, again, we live in a free country where you can have as many kids as you want, but that doesn't mean society should have to pay for all of them.
So, again, we live in a free country where you can have as many kids as you want, but that doesn't mean society should have to pay for all of them.
Do you see a problem there?Snorkelfarsan wrote:
What I want is a government "of, by, and for the people" that somehow makes it so that people only can have a certain number of children.
I'm saying that the government "of, by, and for the people" should not get to decide this. The government that represents the people should not be placing this kind of restriction on the people. I am arguing for individual responsiblity and choice. You are arguing for a government that tells you what to do.
(grammar and logic correction)
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-01-24 22:06:11)
Yes I am, because I whish people could be responsible and don't have more kids than they can support without help from others, but most people don't think about that. Most people don't care. So somebody has to do something, for our planet and for the taxpayers.RAIMIUS wrote:
I am arguing for individual responsiblity and choice. You are arguing for a government that tells you what to do.
I would like to argue for individual responsibility and choice, but I don't trust humans to take that responsiblity. Because we have failed so many times before.
That's the inherent difference. You don't trust people to do what you think is right. But what you think is right also seems to infringe rather dramatically on others' personal freedoms. So is it truly right?Snorkelfarsan wrote:
Yes I am, because I whish people could be responsible and don't have more kids than they can support without help from others, but most people don't think about that. Most people don't care. So somebody has to do something, for our planet and for the taxpayers.RAIMIUS wrote:
I am arguing for individual responsiblity and choice. You are arguing for a government that tells you what to do.
I would like to argue for individual responsibility and choice, but I don't trust humans to take that responsiblity. Because we have failed so many times before.
Where does it end? The goverment tells you how many kids you can have. What about the foods you eat? Where you work? How much you earn? It's a very slipperly slope, that frankly doesn't need to be tread upon.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
more than 3----on two conditions
1. They have the means to raise them properly
2. They are not raised to be idiots
these things may have been posted and if so sorry, i just didn't take the time to read it.
1. They have the means to raise them properly
2. They are not raised to be idiots
these things may have been posted and if so sorry, i just didn't take the time to read it.
You make a good point, it could possibly spiral out of control. Although your examples are typicall for a communist state. And just because China isn't doing a good job in controlling their population doesn't mean more developed and "civilized" countries will fail too.FEOS wrote:
That's the inherent difference. You don't trust people to do what you think is right. But what you think is right also seems to infringe rather dramatically on others' personal freedoms. So is it truly right?
Where does it end? The goverment tells you how many kids you can have. What about the foods you eat? Where you work? How much you earn? It's a very slipperly slope, that frankly doesn't need to be tread upon.
But whether I am right or wrong about restricting ourselves, I think we can all agree upon the fact that there are allready to many of us humans on this planet. And that we certainly don't need more of us. So something has to be done, and why wait until it's too late? If we can start right now, bit by bit.
Every parent will argue that they can raise their kids porperly, and every parent will argue that their kids are not idiots.rhinoh2o74 wrote:
more than 3----on two conditions
1. They have the means to raise them properly
2. They are not raised to be idiots
these things may have been posted and if so sorry, i just didn't take the time to read it.